Colin Kahl
Assistant Coach, University of Michigan
60+ rounds on the topic

THEORY AND TOPICALITY
I have no overwhelming theoretical biases. I will listen to 
dispositional
CPs, conditional CPs, PICs, international CPs, etc. I will also listen 
to
dispositionality bad, conditionality bad, PICs bad, international fiat 
bad,
etc. That being said, I hold all theory arguments (including Topicality 
and
any other theory issue labeled a voter) to a very high threshold-I 
presume
that the target of a theory objection is innocent until proven guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if you want me to pull the 
trigger on
a theory voter, you must (1) invest time on it before the last 
rebuttal,
(2) be clear, and (3) either prove clear in-round abuse or build a
persuasive case for a precedent for abuse that undermines education or
fairness. Ultimately, I evaluate theory arguments like other arguments: 
to
win them you have to have a mix of offense and defense and your offense 
has
to be compelling.

KRITIKS
Despite my Michigan affiliation, I have no problem with kritiks. I do a 
lot
of the kritik work for our squad, I hear kritiks frequently, and I vote 
on
them when they are answered poorly. In my opinion, persuasive kritiks 
have
(1) a clear link that is well explained, (2) a well articulated and
defended framework for evaluating the kritik (i.e., a specification of 
the
kritik's ontological, epistemological, or methodological starting 
point,
and a specification of whether the kritik's impact is policy based,
in-round, or both), and (3) a reason the kritik warrants rejection of 
the
Aff (this includes impact comparison indicating that the increment of 
link
and impact outweighs/takes precedence over the Aff's 
advantage/advocacy,
and it also includes a defense of the net benefits of the kritik's
alternative). If you are Aff, you need to (1) make sure you answer 
every
level of the kritik (its starting point/framework/basis for comparison,
link, internal link, impact, alternative, etc.), and (2) defend the 
value
of your plan/advantages/advocacy/framework.

Finally, I want to say something about kritik permutations: I like them 
and
I think they are clearly legitimate. Kritiks obviously aren't CPs, but 
they
usually operate like CPs (that is, they envision an alternative world
distinct from the plan and the status quo). Perms are essential to test
whether or not the kritik's alternative creates a forced choice. If it 
is
possible to do the plan/endorse the Aff and embrace most or all of the
kritik, and doing so is net beneficial, the kritik does not create a 
forced
choice and is not a reason to vote Neg. To win a perm, the Aff must 
clearly
spell it out (and write it down), and must have evidence or a good 
reason
why the perm avoids the kritik and/or has a net benefit that outweighs 
the
residual link and impact to the kritik. To beat a perm, the Neg must 
prove
that the perm doesn't avoid the kritik and that the increment of 
residual
link and impact outweighs/takes precedence over the Aff.

EVIDENCE AND INTERVENTION
I've done a fair amount of research on this topic and I think evidence 
is
extremely important. I reward teams that read good cards, read them
clearly, and argue them well, and I will call for cards on key issues 
after
the debate. However, the amount of much work I do for (or against ) you
varies on the context. If both teams are doing a good job evaluating 
and
comparing evidence, I will go into the evidence to see who's right. If 
only
one team is doing a good job, the team slacking off should not expect 
me to
do work for them. Finally, if both teams are slacking, I may go into 
the
evidence and extract arguments neither team bothered to make in order 
to
resolve the issue in question. In short, failure to evaluate and 
compare
evidence can be very dangerous when your are debating in front of me.

Back